Castillo v. 19th Auto Repair LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Carlos Alberto Paramo Castillo,
Plaintiff,
v.
19th Auto Repair LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-01178-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Carlos Alberto Paramo Castillo previously obtained default judgment on
his claims involving unpaid wages. (Doc. 15.) Castillo now seeks an award of attorneys’
fees and costs against all defendants. (Doc. 16.) Both federal and state law authorize an
award of attorneys’ fees in these circumstances. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); A.R.S. § 23-364(G).
To determine a reasonable attorneys’ fees award “a court calculates the lodestar figure by
multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on a case by a reasonable hourly
rate.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). The court then must decide
“whether to modify the lodestar figure, upward or downward, based on factors not
subsumed in the lodestar figure.” Id.
Castillo seeks to recover 15.5 hours at an hourly rate of $445, for a total of
$6,897.50. Consistent with decisions by other judges in this district, the hourly rate of $445
is reasonable given counsel’s expertise and experience. Romero v. Steel Roots LLC, No.
CV-23-01033-PHX-ROS, 2024 WL 2389353, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2024) (citing cases).
And 15.5 hours is a reasonable amount of time for the initial consultation, drafting the
Case 2:25-cv-01178-KML Document 18 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
complaint, arranging for service, applying for default, drafting the motion for default
judgment, and drafting the motion for attorneys’ fees. See id. at *3 (19.1 hours reasonable
in similar case involving default judgment). Even if some of the billed time might have
been spent on non-recoverable administrative tasks, the total number of hours is
reasonable. See Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011) (“The essential goal in shifting fees
(to either party) is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection.”). The lodestar
figure is $6,897.50.
Castillo does not seek an adjustment to the lodestar and the factors not subsumed in
the lodestar do not support an adjustment in this case. Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729
F.3d 1196, 1209 n.11 (9th Cir. 2013) (some factors are presumptively accounted for in the
lodestar calculation). Of particular importance, cases involving a relatively small amount
of unpaid wages are not desirable and the award sought in this case is similar to awards in
other cases. Romero, 2024 WL 2389353, at *3. Castillo is entitled to the lodestar amount
as well as his actual litigation costs of $683.60, representing the filing fee and service of
process fee. Id. at *4 (awarding costs).
Finally, Castillo seeks to recover an additional $5,545.28 “in attorneys’ fees and
costs to be incurred in potential collections efforts.” (Doc. 16 at 6.) Castillo explains his
counsel has engaged “the Parker Law Firm . . . to assist them and their clients in efforts to
collect on default judgments.” (Doc. 16 at 15.) “Parker Law charges a 25% contingency
fee on all amounts recovered” and requires an “$850 costs retainer before undertaking any
collection efforts.” (Doc. 16.) Based on this arrangement, Castillo explains adding together
the initial judgment ($11,200) and the attorneys’ fees and costs ($6,897.50+683.60) means
defendants owe a total of $18,781.10. Assuming Parker Law recovers that full amount,
Parker Law will keep 25%, i.e. $4,695.28. But Parker Law will also keep the initial $850
retainer, for a total of $5,545.28. Castillo argues the court should award him this additional
$5,545.28 to cover expected collection costs.
Castillo has cited a few cases where his counsel was awarded future collection costs.
But those cases do not address the fundamental flaw in seeking recovery costs before they
Case 2:25-cv-01178-KML Document 18 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
are incurred. As explained in a different case handled by Castillo’s counsel where the court
rejected the request for future recovery costs, “[a] court can only award ‘reasonable’ costs
and fees. Until fees [or costs] are incurred, the Court has no way to determine if they were
reasonable.” Id. In the present case, the Parker Law firm “might engage in collection efforts
consisting of a single letter. If the defendants then pay the entire judgment, a letter will
have cost $5,000, a patently unreasonable amount.” Id.; see also Romero v. Synergy
Restoration LLC, No. CV-24-01602-PHX-MTL, 2025 WL 509259, at *5 (D. Ariz. Feb.
14, 2025) (same). Castillo is free to seek an award of collections costs once he has incurred
collections costs and can establish those costs are reasonable for the amount of work
performed.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. 16) is
GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is awarded against all defendants $6,897.50 in attorneys’
fees and $683.60 in costs, for a total of $7,581.10.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-01178-KML Document 18 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 3